So there is a, a motive to get out of that state court appeal and come here instead, correct?

Right.

Well, let me just say a couple things about preclusion.

I, I find it highly ironic that P- Petitioner wants to rely on preclusion in a case where it's conceded preclusion doesn't apply.

Preclusion only applies, as, uh, my friend said, when the issue has been litigated or could have been litigated.

Here, there's a directed challenge to the consent decree, um, that could not have been litigated.

It's seeking to void and invalidate it.

No, but Ms, Ms. Preggolar says, "Look, we have this whole other, uh, uh, notion of collateral attacks on a judgment that are allowable and that appellate review is something different." So if we're trying to characterize what's going on here, how do we know whether she's right, that we should call this collateral attack, or you're right, that this is really an appellate, uh, exercise of appellate jurisdiction of the nature that Rooker is concerned about?